Is the notion of "patriarchy" falsifiable, given a state of relative freedom?

[kora]

Well, that was a waste of time.

No I was just completely exhausted, morning come I'm interested again, I'll check out the studies. Thanks for a thorough answer, if you could take the time to complete it that would be great (I mean extrapolate on how these supposed innate differences should translate to adult society)

 

[Cherry Cola]

There's sexual dimorphism, human beings are a tournament species more so than a pair bonding one. But humans are largely memetic creatures, can't just point to genetics and expect the answers to be there. Toy preference is a good counter to the tabula rasa notion, but that notion is just cuckoo from the get go. You don't need the tabula rasa notion to deny arguments which claim that sexism doesn't exist anymore and all the differences in how men and women live their lives and are treated are due to genetics, because we don't a precise enough understanding of human cognition to seperate genetic influence from memetic on such a large scale covering so many different areas.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

However, if the patriarchy does exist the best way to fix that is to solve mens issues. What's an issue females have? Being seen as the primary caretaker of children. What's a way to solve that? Empower men to allow them to be the primary caretaker without prejudice! This will draw women away from being seen as the primary caretaker and thus solve that issue.

See a lot of gender problems are inverse. If you solve one side you solve the other. Women aren't seen as competent and have to prove themselves? Make being manly not about being competent at everything all the time. Make men who aren't competent exist and be visible in society in a meaningful manner and people will realise that men suck at stuff... err okay maybe not that. How about... don't judge and assume men are socially oblivious and useless at social tasks and this will in turn help women and men be seen as individuals.

Likewise let male rape be heard and taken seriously, this will increase the seriousness of female rape and lower false accusations and accusations of false accusations.

Yeah exactly, that's the thing and why it's a change the discourse has turned out the way it has.

By very few radical people, perhaps. I've yet to encounter anyone who self identifies as an MRA (men's rights advocate) who is not also a WRA (woman's rights advocate). You might find more extreme views when you start getting into MGTOW and PUA's, but even then it's hardly reflective of the majority of those communities.

What's often (I'd go so far as to say almost always) the case, as like I'm doing in this thread, is to contrast men against women to see if they do in fact have relative equality (both legally and of opportunity, not outcome). That is to say, to see if the patriarchy actually exists.

It seems strange to me that oppression would be claimed without having a metric by which to base that on. If you're looking for oppression of minority races in a culture, you compare against the majority race. If comparisons are not allowed, any and every inconvenience experienced by the group being examined can be seen as oppressive.

There's not much genuine evidence supporting the idea that women are significantly more raped than men. I say "genuine", because "made to penetrate" is often counted as not rape. This holds true for domestic violence and many other issues seen as "women's issues" as well.

Sexual predation is not a gendered issue. Nor is partner violence. It affects men and women alike and is not expressed by mentally healthy individuals.

You could use the same method to deny the existence of structural racism. Not very meaningful imo. Just because a concept is nebulous by its very definition doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered to exist, which I presume is the implication of it not being falsifiable. One can prove specific instances of sexism or rasism, patriarchy or structural rasism and other similar instances, are just the imagined sums of these instances. Sure they are problematic because there is more being imagined than has been verified but this also prompts further uncovering.

So there is some genuine evidence supporting the idea that women are significantly more raped than men? What's the evidence that they aren't? I'm sure men are also raped, and sexually harassed, but to the same degree? Doesn't sound probable what with the innate differences in sexuality.

 

[420MuNkEy]

You could use the same method to deny the existence of structural racism.

I see very little evidence to support the idea that there is structural racism persisting in western countries today.

So there is some genuine evidence supporting the idea that women are significantly more raped than men? What's the evidence that they aren't? I'm sure men are also raped, and sexually harassed, but to the same degree? Doesn't sound probable what with the innate differences in sexuality.

There's a pretty good list of citations to relevant studies here. It's the bibliography of this, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. It's important to note that this is mainly looking at female on male sexual predation, and the numbers for male on male are not well known (as far as I know).

 

[Sinny91]

Oh boy, I hope it's something significantly more compelling than hard data with explicitly defined methodologies that can be criticized if they're flawed.


This isn't a gender war. It's not men vs women. It's Patriarchy proponents vs their critics (many of which are women).

Oh boy... anecdotes
Because that's totally a more valid form of "evidence" than statistics.

I got pulled away mid flow by rl , there are other valid forms of evidence besides statistics you know. It seems that you keep side stepping all forms of compromise in the progression of this discussion

 

[Brontosaurie]

There's sexual dimorphism, human beings are a tournament species more so than a pair bonding one. But humans are largely memetic creatures, can't just point to genetics and expect the answers to be there. Toy preference is a good counter to the tabula rasa notion, but that notion is just cuckoo from the get go. You don't need the tabula rasa notion to deny arguments which claim that sexism doesn't exist anymore and all the differences in how men and women live their lives and are treated are due to genetics, because we don't a precise enough understanding of human cognition to seperate genetic influence from memetic on such a large scale covering so many different areas.



Yeah exactly, that's the thing and why it's a change the discourse has turned out the way it has.



You could use the same method to deny the existence of structural racism. Not very meaningful imo. Just because a concept is nebulous by its very definition doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered to exist, which I presume is the implication of it not being falsifiable. One can prove specific instances of sexism or rasism, patriarchy or structural rasism and other similar instances, are just the imagined sums of these instances. Sure they are problematic because there is more being imagined than has been verified but this also prompts further uncovering.

So there is some genuine evidence supporting the idea that women are significantly more raped than men? What's the evidence that they aren't? I'm sure men are also raped, and sexually harassed, but to the same degree? Doesn't sound probable what with the innate differences in sexuality.

Tabula rasa sadly isn't just some fringe "cuckoo" idea that no one needs to bother with in the first place. It's a premise for current feminism. They want equal opportunity, but they measure by outcome. That's how it goes. The newspaper prints articles about how there aren't "enough" female engineers, and important people are worried. What? It's not oppression that irks them, it's statistical discrepancies. And whenever one is found, it is directly attributed to structural whatever, however little sense it makes. Tabula rasa. It even permeates policy, and it absolutely pummels and dominates public discourse.

Now, yeah, there may be explanations for this. People are easily indignated when generalized statements are made or are not demonstratively opposed. It's easy to see why some slight modification of tabula rasa would be socially convenient. But an explanation is not necessarily a reason or excuse. Fact is, understandable and natural as it may be, people do think tabula rasa and that's just what it is. Sorry if i'm preemptively exaggerating your Fe :P Just got the feeling i could re-program you into me. It's how criminals win debates. Verbal jump start.

 

[kora]

@bronto and @420munkey

So is the general criticism of this tabula rasa assumption underlying feminist thought the assertion that the female gender is not as cognitively adapted to some tasks as the male gender? I get what is being negated but what is being affirmed? <~~~this is the point that needs discussing now. If feminism (in general, there are many strains in fact) is wrong about its expectations of statistical outcome and is now wildly putting it down to a general conspiracy theory of "the patriarchy" when it is innate differences causing the discrepancy, what must we tell women to accept about themselves and to tell their daughters etc... Should the female gender be encouraged to direct itself towards things it is more adapted to? Or should everyone just be satisfied with things as they are? Is that the point?

Dunno
The studies I looked at always told me cognitive differences were pretty minimal, and variations between individuals were of more consequence than between genders. Real cognitive difference kicks in later on with culture... Here is a study for example that pretty much counters all toy differentiation studies monkey posted, and if the disparity is not innate + biological, then feminism is correct in its assumption that the disparity is down to culture.

Here is linked study for monkey, it counters the toy studies you linked (Brontosaurie mentioned them to me too but never provided them) I will answer you more specifically laterz though weed smoking ape.

https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

 

[Brontosaurie]

I sure do see your point. Allow me to rephrase and then elaborate to my best ability:

If men and women are different and men are better at technology, then what - if anything - are women better at? And if the difference is too skewed and deep and decisive to cope with, how do we harness its truth?

There are a couple of things i'd like to state in conjunction with these important problems.

What individual women should tell themselves and each other isn't of my concern. I respect these individuals, hypothetical as they may be. What i'm interested in is truth and politics. Ideally the latter should tail the former in a quite neat and steady way. Right now, politics in many countries are informed by theories which are dubious at best. These theories are used to generate criteria for equality. I would simply eradicate these policies without feeling a need to replace them, because their installation was erroneous in the first place. There was no problem and it is meaningless to look for a solution. State intervention should be dealt carefully. "Maybe men and women are really the same so they should be doing the same things overall otherwise there's something wrong" isn't a careful thought, for one. Implementing measures to try and manipulate outcomes to approximate the arbitrarily chosen criterion, is worse. We should opt for as direct criteria as possible. If the "equality proper" criterion is applicable, it is preferable to "gender/race/handicap equality". If "health and wealth per capita" is applicable, it is preferable still. I'm not saying group discrimination is never relevant, just that it can't be a guiding star. All statistics are politically relevant, but some are more central and others more peripheral. Human prosperity and peace is a central value of any civilization. Gender equality in some job isn't. Someone thinking it's quite probably harder to get hired in Texas if your name is Gzxkronka from Azbzjedsjikstan isn't. These are utopian, precious little concerns. In reality, they function merely as decoys and emotional puppet strings. And they can be expected to straighten themselves out as civilization progresses. I use singular but this isn't metaphysics. I refer to any system of interactions contingent on a technologically supported social contract. Anyway, as we observe that the cause of female liberty and empowerment is technology, prosperity, education, peace and freedom of speech, we must seriously ask: Why feminism? Why bother? Emancipation is a plant and it grows if and only if the right circumstances are present. Shouting won't help.

As for the positive female qualities - as you say, the affirmations: First off, the woman bears the offspring. The woman is the limiting factor in reproduction. This alone is enough to conclude that they are every bit as valuable as men, if not more - not just in some bio-reductionist x-ray but in the hearts and minds of every honest person. I do not believe healthy, smart humans have any problem respecting women and allowing women to flourish as individuals, even if it should surface that they are on average 17 % worse at some tasks and better at no tasks. On the contrary, as i stated in the above paragraph.

In addition to being the reproductive commodity, women also excel in care and maintenence of relationships. They are a balancing factor. It's hard to define, since men have historically been responsible for technological progress and our language reflects this, with a positive/active trait often holding some masculine connotation. The dilemma arises as we identify humanity with civilization, and then observe that men built civilization. Doesn't this mean women are less human? I don't think it does, but i lack the words. Some mental hoops need to get jumped here.

Maybe we just need to stress the importance of emotions and how they're the other half of what makes us human. *BeUTiFLe*

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If men and women are different and men are better at technology, then what - if anything - are women better at? And if the difference is too skewed and deep and decisive to cope with, how do we harness its truth?

Let's say it turns out women are statistically better at childcare and men are slightly better with machines.

What do you do? Do you force people into roles based on their predispositions, or do you let everyone try their strengths and find their answers.

What do you do with this knowledge? Does it change anything about the situation?

 

[Sinny91]

Good question B.

I wish I were sobre enough to join the inquisition lol

 

[Brontosaurie]

Let's say it turns out women are statistically better at childcare and men are slightly better with machines.

What do you do? Do you force people into roles based on their predispositions, or do you let everyone try their strengths and find their answers.

What do you do with this knowledge? Does it change anything about the situation?

What i would do if i had political power in my country would be to eliminate regulatory policies based on the premise of innate psychological gender likeness. I wouldn't force anyone, except forcing the forcers to stop forcing. My whole point is self-actualization. Ideally, people would end up in places where they're useful, but forcing this defeats the point entirely.

Maybe you don't live in a place where state politicians spend time thinking about how they should "get the outcome right" by incentivizing/soft-coercing. I can see why my post would have you confused. But i'm pro individuality and anti forcing people into roles which is why i'm in this discussion.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What i would do if i had political power in my country would be to eliminate policies based on the premise of innate psychological gender likeness. I wouldn't force anyone, except forcing the forcers to stop forcing. My whole point is self-actualization. Ideally, people would end up in places where they're useful, but forcing this defeats the point entirely.

Maybe you don't live in a place where state politicians spend time thinking about how they should "get the outcome right" by incentivizing/soft-coercing. I can see why my post would have you confused. But i'm pro individuality and anti forcing people into roles which is why i'm in this discussion.

Not necessarily political power. You are asking what the differences are and I'm asking what are you going to do with your answer.

I agree with your principles, I don't see what you are trying to get at.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Not necessarily political power. You are asking what the differences are and I'm asking what are you going to do with your answer.

I like your principles, I don't see how it's related but I'll answer.
I live in a place that recently elected a completely bigoted, fanatic, catholic party giving them a decisive majority in the government and allowing them to make idiots of themselves to the international community, as they did in the past. People in politics here don't care about forcing, they just want to look nice and be elected over and over to grab the money and secure futures for their family members. It doesn't matter which party rules here, things generally look the same.

I was asking to summarize higs' queries just for my own convenience. I'm really not asking, but rather asserting that the assumption of no differences is untenable. As it is a critical assumption that affects reality while also itching my cognition, it seems relevant to me.

Your place seems horrible. Seems like a lot of forcing going on but perhaps not in a cohesive, planned way.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The assumption of complete equality is untenable, agreed, although irrelevant. I think what matters is the approach of allowing the self-actualisation, rather than discussing the minute technicalities. If one side starts pointing out differences then the discourse is about allowing some role or inequality to exist by the virtue of it being the natural outcome, which is the argument that denies agency and social adaptation and doesn't make much sense to enforce.

I think you give politics too much credit, I doubt political correctness or that side has this much impact, it's more the media doing the perpetuation of misconceptions.

Are you against incentivising? I think it's a waste of resources, provided there are no artificially opposite forces making certain paths more difficult, there's no reason to disproportionately coerce the population somewhere. I'd say it's the industry that initiates this incentives for their labor market plans.

Patriarchy can be understood manifold. As a perception of a male oriented society that hinders women, or a perception of women who, according to a number of arguing groups, should be encouraged into every dimension of male activity and possibly vice-versa, thereby enforcing artificial equality of roles that wouldn't have happened had the agents have their free reign.

 

[420MuNkEy]

@bronto and @420munkey

So is the general criticism of this tabula rasa assumption underlying feminist thought the assertion that the female gender is not as cognitively adapted to some tasks as the male gender? I get what is being negated but what is being affirmed? <~~~this is the point that needs discussing now. If feminism (in general, there are many strains in fact) is wrong about its expectations of statistical outcome and is now wildly putting it down to a general conspiracy theory of "the patriarchy" when it is innate differences causing the discrepancy, what must we tell women to accept about themselves and to tell their daughters etc... Should the female gender be encouraged to direct itself towards things it is more adapted to? Or should everyone just be satisfied with things as they are? Is that the point?

Dunno
The studies I looked at always told me cognitive differences were pretty minimal, and variations between individuals were of more consequence than between genders. Real cognitive difference kicks in later on with culture... Here is a study for example that pretty much counters all toy differentiation studies monkey posted, and if the disparity is not innate + biological, then feminism is correct in its assumption that the disparity is down to culture.

Here is linked study for monkey, it counters the toy studies you linked (Brontosaurie mentioned them to me too but never provided them) I will answer you more specifically laterz though weed smoking ape.

https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/spelke2005.pdf

I think you may be fundamentally missing the point. It's not aptitude or cognitive deficiencies/advantage. While these differences do exist to some extent, it's preference, not ability. One may be a brilliant pianist but prefer not to peruse that as a career.

Men aren't custodians more often than women because either one is smarter, it's just a job that is preferred by one sex over another, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Paragraph 1: I can see your point, but how argue self-actualization properly with people who think its bottom line is "do whatever you want" rather than "make the best of yourself"? The notion of tabula rasa is contrary to the philosophy of self-actualization, at least in certain spots. I honestly think people need to confront and acclimatize themselves to the idea that just because we all have minds doesn't make these minds the same, people have different capacities and these are sometimes correlated with sex or ethnicity.

2: What can i say? This is a big disagreement, and i don't think anyone will convince the other. To me, political correctness and internet activism are massively relevant phenomena. Let's wait a couple of years and look again shall we?

3: Nothing to add here imo.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think you may be fundamentally missing the point. It's not aptitude or cognitive deficiencies/advantage. While these differences do exist to some extent, it's preference, not ability. One may be a brilliant pianist but prefer not to peruse that as a career.

Men aren't custodians more often than women because either one is smarter, it's just a job that is preferred by one sex over another, and there's nothing wrong with that.

In the end, it'd be hard to argue that a preference difference won't also entail a capacity difference, at least practically.

You're right that preference is the better starting point, though.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Paragraph 1: I can see your point, but how argue self-actualization properly with people who think its bottom line is "do whatever you want" rather than "make the best of yourself"? The notion of tabula rasa is contrary to the philosophy of self-actualization, at least in certain spots. I honestly think people need to confront and acclimatize themselves to the idea that just because we all have minds doesn't make these minds the same, people have different capacities and these are sometimes correlated with sex or ethnicity.

I'd say the freedom of preference is effective enough in providing correct starting points. Personal endeavour and community behind are the life shaping factors that allow the individual to fill a role in the society.

The differences aren't big enough to falsify the tabula rasa idea or to consider limiting freedom or community stereotyping as helpful and they aren't small enough to push for the role equilibrium as the only right way.

The patriarchy to address is the inequality arising from factors other than agency (nature, choice), that could discriminate for gender and getting rid of any basis for discrimination external to the individual performance.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I'd say the freedom of preference is effective enough in providing correct starting points. Personal endeavour and community behind are the life shaping factors that allow the individual to fill a role in the society.

The differences aren't big enough to falsify the tabula rasa idea or to consider limiting freedom or community stereotyping as helpful and they aren't small enough to push for the role equilibrium as the only right way.

The patriarchy to address is the inequality arising from factors other than agency (nature, choice), that could discriminate for gender and getting rid of any basis for discrimination external to the individual performance.

Maybe it's a start. But how smuggle that nice liberalism in there? I just get the feeling political correctness and postmodernism need to be overthrown as they don't allow for appeals to reason. It's like trying to run a car shop by teaching people to stand beside cars and wave tools. It looks right, but they're still stuck in their old non-car-fixing ways until you instruct them in the mechanics.

Hm. I think the differences are enough, unless we are to play that epistemologically antiquated game of "this looks like a positive claim so that's where tons of burden of proof is to be imagined even though it's more positive only grammatically and is supported by triangulation while the opposite claim is supported only by value conservatism".

Getting rid of discrimination isn't a realistic ambition imo. We should keep track of it, mostly. It is relevant, just not a chief concern and not a site of effective solutions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'd say the freedom of preference is effective enough in providing correct starting points. Personal endeavour and community behind are the life shaping factors that allow the individual to fill a role in the society.

The differences aren't big enough to falsify the tabula rasa idea or to consider limiting freedom or community stereotyping as helpful and they aren't small enough to push for the role equilibrium as the only right way.

The patriarchy to address is the inequality arising from factors other than agency (nature, choice), that could discriminate for gender and getting rid of any basis for discrimination external to the individual performance.

When you say the differences aren't big enough to falsify the tabula rasa idea what do you mean? How big a difference would it take to falsify it? The tabula rasa idea states that there are no biological differences, or in the very least that they are entirely negligible.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

When you say the differences aren't big enough to falsify the tabula rasa idea what do you mean? How big a difference would it take to falsify it? The tabula rasa idea states that there are no biological differences, or in the very least that they are entirely negligible.

I'm not aware of tabula rasa as defined inside of the patriarchy discourse, so I'm going with the general tabula rasa, which is true with respect to both men and women that they can become pretty much anything and sex restriction doesn't apply. What applies though is their innate preferences and challenges.

We can have 50 chess players and only 1 woman among them. If that's due to preference and nature, it's fine, if that's the effect of patriarchy and restricting women, then these negatives should be nullified.

I'm also proposing the idea that even if sexes perform less efficiently in some aspect that they still should be allowed to try their hand in it, even though it says on a paper that they will fail. Personal variation overrides any sexual variation as a whole.

There should be no restriction based on sex as it's invalidated by the sheer diversity of aptitudes as measured between people.

Maybe it's a start. But how smuggle that nice liberalism in there? I just get the feeling political correctness and postmodernism need to be overthrown as they don't allow for appeals to reason. It's like trying to run a car shop by teaching people to stand beside cars and wave tools. It looks right, but they're still stuck in their old non-car-fixing ways until you instruct them in the mechanics.

In this I'd agree with you, the whole media-policy idea-forming structure should be brought down as it pollutes everything.

Getting rid of discrimination isn't a realistic ambition imo. We should keep track of it, mostly. It is relevant, just not a chief concern and not a site of effective solutions.

Sure, I don't mean to change people's functioning to stop them from discriminating, rather I'd think of a system where discrimination is evident and immediately subjective and easily defended from or pointed out. Or where there are ways of avoiding it, alternatives.

In the end, performance of individuals is the only thing that determines their life situation. Nothing else should weigh on that.

 

[420MuNkEy]

In the end, it'd be hard to argue that a preference difference won't also entail a capacity difference, at least practically.

You're right that preference is the better starting point, though.

It's important to remember that a job/career is more than just the application of a skill. There are a host of different factors at play when choosing what you do for a living, like compensation, how demanding the job is, and a litany of other factors that are unique to certain jobs/categories (like willingness to be exposed to vomit or feces in the case of custodial work, willingness to potentially be subjected to violence, willingness to work outside in the heat/cold, willingness to work outside the law, etc). Each individual is going to weigh the importance of these factors differently, either positively or negatively, depending on their preferences, and average trends in these preferences can exist amongst various demographics.

I think simply looking at aptitude is missing most of the picture.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I see very little evidence to support the idea that there is structural racism persisting in western countries today.


There's a pretty good list of citations to relevant studies here. It's the bibliography of this, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. It's important to note that this is mainly looking at female on male sexual predation, and the numbers for male on male are not well known (as far as I know).

You must not have been looking then. Either that or there's something about the concepts definition, or the demonstration methods employed which are problematic to you. Irregardless, if you deny structural racism in western countries, then there's little point in discussing sexism.

The material you link to lacks context and is thus not put in proportion and as such is more or less irrelevant. I'm not denying the fact that females rape and/or sexually harass men. Of course they do, and oftentimes the reactions from the social sphere wherein such rape occurs is disgusting. Rape Culture is also a bullshit concept, at least 90% of it or some similar number. But to deny that rapists are primarily men and victims primarily women is just loony. Come on, you said you were aware of biological differences, then you should understand that in a tournament species rape and sexual harrasment is not going to be even close to gender neutral in any matter because different reproductive strategies are employed.

 

[Sinny91]

I think simply looking at aptitude is missing most of the picture.

That's rather different from what you were stating about CEO'S earlier...

At least from what I read, did I mis read?

 

[Cherry Cola]

To me, the problem is not that mostly men work in STEM and construction or that most of the famous primatologists are women, and most kindergarden teachers are women. It's that women and men who may be better fit to work with something that falls outside the norms of their gender might not, either because they are deterred from doing so for some reason* which can be attributed (not necessarily wholly, but at least partially) to sexism or because the notion doesn't occur to them at all owing to norms.

*such as the environment of the workplace, salary, ability to progress careerwise, negative opinions of others etc

How that is to be solved I dunno, I don't the problem is as acute as its made out to be by most feminists, or at least that treating it as such just leads to the implementation of counterproductive measures.

 

[420MuNkEy]

That's rather different from what you were stating about CEO'S earlier...

At least from what I read, did I mis read?

Either that or misinterpreted.

 

[420MuNkEy]

You must not have been looking then. Either that or there's something about the concepts definition, or the demonstration methods employed which are problematic to you. Irregardless, if you deny structural racism in western countries, then there's little point in discussing sexism.

What I find "problematic" is intellectually dishonest arguments like the conflation of observed negative outcomes with oppression. There's no barrier to opportunity, as far as I can see. Discrimination based on race and gender is illegal, and has been for quite some time.

The material you link to lacks context and is thus not put in proportion and as such is more or less irrelevant. I'm not denying the fact that females rape and/or sexually harass men. Of course they do, and oftentimes the reactions from the social sphere wherein such rape occurs is disgusting. Rape Culture is also a bullshit concept, at least 90% of it or some similar number. But to deny that rapists are primarily men and victims primarily women is just loony. Come on, you said you were aware of biological differences, then you should understand that in a tournament species rape and sexual harrasment is not going to be even close to gender neutral in any matter because different reproductive strategies are employed.

It doesn't lack context. It's a list of cited studies, each of which you can look into if you desire. The studies there seem to show a fairly equal distribution of men and women being sexually assaulted by a fairly equal distribution of men and women. Of course, on average, women are more likely to have reported being a victim of sexual assault, but not by a very wide margin (which is what I mean when I say "fairly equal"). If you want to simply write off evidence of this as "loony", then you've demonstrated that you're unwilling to be reasoned with and there's no point in engaging with you further.

 

[Sinny91]

I take issue with your defense of 'it's illegal now', '(so obviously it doesn't exist)' sort of attitude. At least that's what I am perceiving from you, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What I find "problematic" is intellectually dishonest arguments like the conflation of observed negative outcomes with oppression. There's no barrier to opportunity, as far as I can see. Discrimination based on race and gender is illegal, and has been for quite some time.

So basically your definition of racism isn't the same as that which is commonly employed, yours being more precise, less inclusive? Or what exactly do you mean?

Weed is illegal in plenty of places where people smoke it. I guess they don't actually smoke weed though, cause it's illegal?

It doesn't lack context. It's a list of cited studies, each of which you can look into if you desire. The studies there seem to show a fairly equal distribution of men and women being sexually assaulted by a fairly equal distribution of men and women. Of course, on average, women are more likely to have reported being a victim of sexual assault, but not by a very wide margin (which is what I mean when I say "fairly equal"). If you want to simply write off evidence of this as "loony", then you've demonstrated that you're unwilling to be reasoned with and there's no point in engaging with you further.

And the nature of such assault? The severity? What was that about intellectually dishonest arguments like conflation of observed negative outcomes again?

Moreover, it's not hard to find studies and statistics to support a case and then call it evidence. But if I look at the relevant wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender and the sources it uses there's another picture painted than the one you claim to be da truth. And its not because the page is controlled by a feminist agenda, that much is evident from the editing history. Which is rather extensive by the way, since the article has existed for nine years. But I am to assume you're more well versed on the subject than the people who have been editing it for ages? That humans beings are an entirely unique tournament species in a way that makes zero sense?

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's important to remember that a job/career is more than just the application of a skill. There are a host of different factors at play when choosing what you do for a living, like compensation, how demanding the job is, and a litany of other factors that are unique to certain jobs/categories (like willingness to be exposed to vomit or feces in the case of custodial work, willingness to potentially be subjected to violence, willingness to work outside in the heat/cold, willingness to work outside the law, etc). Each individual is going to weigh the importance of these factors differently, either positively or negatively, depending on their preferences, and average trends in these preferences can exist amongst various demographics.

I think simply looking at aptitude is missing most of the picture.

And i think preference is a component in real aptitude (as opposed to measured aptitude), or something.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I take issue with your defense of 'it's illegal now', '(so obviously it doesn't exist)' sort of attitude. At least that's what I am perceiving from you, correct me if I'm wrong.

You can't pass a law to eradicate prejudice. You can, however, pass a law making it illegal to be prejudice, thus rendering equal opportunity. If you are discriminated against, you can take legal action and be compensated extremely well for it. It's an incredible disincentive to discriminate, but that doesn't mean it never happens. The fact that it does happen also doesn't mean it's systemic. It's not a black and white situation.

 

[Grayman]

So basically your definition of racism isn't the same as that which is commonly employed, yours being more precise, less inclusive? Or what exactly do you mean?

Weed is illegal in plenty of places where people smoke it. I guess they don't actually smoke weed though, cause it's illegal?

What I gather from his position... I am probably all sorts of off base...

The fact that woman are statistically less present in a certain workforce is treated as 'proof 'of their oppression and rejection within that workforce.

Statistics showing more blacks in jail is automatic proof that cops are oppressing blacks.


It shouldn't be 'automatic proof' at most it should be a reason to investigate and obtain what is the source of this. It also shouldn't be gone into with the midset to prove that racism and sexism exists but to instead enter with an open mind of many possibilities.

 

[420MuNkEy]

So basically your definition of racism isn't the same as that which is commonly employed, yours being more precise, less inclusive? Or what exactly do you mean?

I mean discrimination based on race.

And the nature of such assault? The severity? What was that about intellectually dishonest arguments like conflation of observed negative outcomes again?

As I clearly stated, you can look into each study further if you'd like more context. I basically gave you a list of 42 studies and you're complaining that it didn't comprehensively explain each one.

Frankly, I don't care what it says on Wikipedia. The fact that you're honestly trying to promote the content of Wikipedia over dozens of actual peer reviewed studies says quite a lot about how intellectually honest you're being.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You can't pass a law to eradicate prejudice. You can, however, pass a law making it illegal to be prejudice, thus rendering equal opportunity. If you are discriminated against, you can take legal action and be compensated extremely well for it. It's an incredible disincentive to discriminate, but that doesn't mean it never happens. The fact that it does happen also doesn't mean it's systemic. It's not a black and white situation.

Passing a law making it illegal to be prejudices does not equate creating equal opportunity, your post even says so itself.

I've also had enough time to look at most of the studies you linked (thank you very much for linking extremely short summaries of 42 studies to support a ridiculous claim while saying here ya go you can look em up individually lol)and they are not enough to support the case you've made about rape.

 

[420MuNkEy]

What I gather from his position... I am probably all sorts of off base...

The fact that woman are statistically less present in a certain workforce is treated as 'proof 'of their oppression and rejection within that workforce.

Statistics showing more blacks in jail is automatic proof that cops are oppressing blacks.


It shouldn't be 'automatic proof' at most it should be a reason to investigate and obtain what is the source of this. It also shouldn't be gone into with the midset to prove that racism and sexism exists but to instead enter with an open mind of many possibilities.

Yes, exactly this.

 

[Death Wizard]

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

The feminists on this forum are full of it.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Passing a law making it illegal to be prejudices does not equate creating equal opportunity, your post even says so itself.

I think you're conflating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

I've also had enough time to look at most of the studies you linked (thank you very much for linking extremely short summaries of 42 studies to support a ridiculous claim while saying here ya go you can look em up individually lol)and they are not enough to support the case you've made about rape.

You wanted prove, I gave you proof. It's not my fault that it was more than you're comfortable with and simultaneously wasn't as verbose as you were comfortable with. If you want to look them up, simply go to scholar.google.com and query the study you're interested in. You don't have to look at all of them, just the ones you want (without cherry-picking the outliers).

 

[Cherry Cola]

I mean discrimination based on race.


As I clearly stated, you can look into each study further if you'd like more context. I basically gave you a list of 42 studies and you're complaining that it didn't comprehensively explain each one.

Frankly, I don't care what it says on Wikipedia. The fact that you're honestly trying to promote the content of Wikipedia over dozens of actual peer reviewed studies says quite a lot about how intellectually honest you're being.

Actually that wikipedia article (and its sources, I mean you did look at all those before dismissing what it says right, as well as the sources of their sources? And the 9 years of editing history? You did look at all that before dismissing it right? I mean you have to because you just dumped extremely short summaries -which may or may not reflect the conclusions of the actual studies- of parts of the contents of 42 studies of largely dubious online availability unto to me) pwns what you gave me about 50 times over.

Yeah I'm more intellectually dishonest than you are. Because you don't get how silly you're being so you can't be dishonest.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What I gather from his position... I am probably all sorts of off base...

The fact that woman are statistically less present in a certain workforce is treated as 'proof 'of their oppression and rejection within that workforce.

Statistics showing more blacks in jail is automatic proof that cops are oppressing blacks.


It shouldn't be 'automatic proof' at most it should be a reason to investigate and obtain what is the source of this. It also shouldn't be gone into with the midset to prove that racism and sexism exists but to instead enter with an open mind of many possibilities.

Statistics are often that retarded when it comes to sexism, but measuring methods are more sophisticated when it comes to racism. One doesn't just look at the amount of white people in jail directly compared to the amount of black.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Actually that wikipedia article (and its sources, I mean you did look at all those before dismissing what it right? And the 9 years of editing history? You did look at all that before dismissing it right? I mean you have to because you just dumped extremely short summaries of parts of the contents of 42 studies of largely dubious online availability unto to me) pwns what you gave me about 50 times over.

Yeah I'm more intellectually dishonest than you are. Because you don't get how silly you're being so you can't be dishonest.

As I also stated, it's the bibliography of a larger report (which I also linked), which you are able to access if you so choose to.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Statistics are often that retarded when it comes to sexism, but measuring methods are more sophisticated when it comes to racism. One doesn't just look at the amount of white people in jail directly compared to the amount of black.

...and this proves racial bias how? This is like trying to honestly claim "black people are clearly worse human beings. Look how many more of them are in prison than white people".

 

[Cherry Cola]

...and this proves racial bias how? This is like trying to honestly claim "black people are clearly worse human beings. Look how many more of them are in prison than white people".

I wasn't trying to prove racial bias to him. And no it's not like that at all, what is said was explicitly that such was not the case and that is like saying it is so? Excuse me but what?

 

[Cherry Cola]

As I also stated, it's the bibliography of a larger report (which I also linked), which you are able to access if you so choose to.

$39.95. Such pristine intellectual honesty you have.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Look at my bitch, it says T-SHIRT

 

[420MuNkEy]

I wasn't trying to prove racial bias to him. And no it's not like that at all, what is said was explicitly that such was not the case and that is like saying it is so? Excuse me but what?

Sorry, I misread what you wrote.

 

[redbaron]

Law is still subject to the interpretation of individuals, so if cultural inequality exists, then passing law doesn't really equate to equal opportunity.

Law is also only as effective as it can be reasonably enforced. If the mechanisms for reporting, investigating and resolving issues are clunky and inefficient, then the law's not doing much for anyone really.

Abusing your spouse is illegal, but that doesn't mean the issue is done and dusted: "Well, we made that illegal so everyone's safe now and abuse will stop, right?"

It's the same for gender equality. The mechanisms for dealing with these things still have a lot of room for improvement. Not because I think we live in a patriarchy, but because we still have a plethora of gender issues (that passing laws isn't going to change) to sort out as a society, both for men and women.

 

[Sinny91]

I mean discrimination based on race.


As I clearly stated, you can look into each study further if you'd like more context. I basically gave you a list of 42 studies and you're complaining that it didn't comprehensively explain each one.

Frankly, I don't care what it says on Wikipedia. The fact that you're honestly trying to promote the content of Wikipedia over dozens of actual peer reviewed studies says quite a lot about how intellectually honest you're being.

Wikipedia comes with footnotes, it's those sources you should criticising.

I was attempting to explore the cultural avenue, unfortunately I had to leave my post.

Monkey keeps talking about 'intellectual honesty', but what intellectual diversity is he bringing to the table?

 

[420MuNkEy]

No I was just completely exhausted, morning come I'm interested again, I'll check out the studies. Thanks for a thorough answer, if you could take the time to complete it that would be great (I mean extrapolate on how these supposed innate differences should translate to adult society)

I'm having a bit of trouble finding the studies that actually had accessible data (can't remember the titles of the study), but here's one that gets at what I was saying.
I'll continue looking but they're hard to find without remembering the exact phrasing that was used.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Wikipedia comes with footnotes, it's those sources you should criticising.

I was attempting to explore the cultural avenue, unfortunately I had to leave my post.

Monkey keeps talking about 'intellectual honesty', but what intellectual diversity is he bringing to the table?

Alright, fine, I'll examine the first relevant citation.

Citation 7 -> BBC Article -> CDC Site -> Summary Report -> Let's look at how "rape" is defined...

Spoiler

According to this, only being penetrated counts as rape against either a man or a woman. While "made to penetrate" is still generously (sarcasm intended) still being deemed "sexual assault", it isn't classified as rape. Being drunk, regardless of by choice or not, is considered rape by this report, but being forcefully fucked by a woman against your will isn't.

But fuck it, we've come this far, let's dig deeper.

Let's take a look at the Prevalence of Sexual Violence, women as compared to men, in the last 12 months in the category of "Other sexual violence" (I'll get to rape in a minute. hold on):
Women: Estimated number of victims 6,646,000, 5.6%
Men: Estimated number of victims 6,027,000, 5.3%

But wait, that's not fair. "Made to penetrate" only applies to men in that category, so let's deduct that:
Women: Estimated number of victims 6,646,000
Men: Estimated number of victims 4,760,000

A bit of a difference, but not massive.


Now, let's look at rape.
Women: Estimated number of victims, 1,270,000 1.1%
Men: Estimated number of victims, *Estimate is not reported

Oh, wait a minute, we subtracted, but we forgot to add. Let's fix that:
Women: Estimated number of victims, 1,270,000 1.1%
Men: Estimated number of victims, 1,267,000 1.1%

Hmm, well, those numbers look pretty damn similar. That's not at all what the Wikipedia article (which, again cited the fucking BBC as the source, not the actual report itself) would seem to indicate. Sure seems like those 9 years of edits really resulted in some top quality stuff...

The reason I looked at 12 month data rather than lifetime is because human memory is terrible and this study had absolutely atrocious definitions for rape that would have included drunk sex. The 12 month data seems like a far more reliable indicator of the actual prevalence of sexual predation/victimization in our society.

 

[Grayman]

Alright, fine, I'll examine the first relevant citation.

Citation 7 -> BBC Article -> CDC Site -> Summary Report -> Let's look at how "rape" is defined...

Spoiler

Seems you are right.

It is only possible to 'forcibly' rape a female as defined by the "FBI" on their own website.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/rapemain

This is the UCR(Uniform Crime Reporting) definition and I imagine any credible news media would use the definitions as defined by law and UCR(FBI). https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr


Based on this above information it is a waste of time to argue about specific charts and data. Our government is shows a very obvious and blatant lack of concern for male victims.

 

[Sinny91]

Alright, fine, I'll examine the first relevant citation.

Citation 7 -> BBC Article -> CDC Site -> Summary Report -> Let's look at how "rape" is defined...

Spoiler

According to this, only being penetrated counts as rape against either a man or a woman. While "made to penetrate" is still generously (sarcasm intended) still being deemed "sexual assault", it isn't classified as rape. Being drunk, regardless of by choice or not, is considered rape by this report, but being forcefully fucked by a woman against your will isn't.

But fuck it, we've come this far, let's dig deeper.

Let's take a look at the Prevalence of Sexual Violence, women as compared to men, in the last 12 months in the category of "Other sexual violence" (I'll get to rape in a minute. hold on):
Women: Estimated number of victims 6,646,000, 5.6%
Men: Estimated number of victims 6,027,000, 5.3%

But wait, that's not fair. "Made to penetrate" only applies to men in that category, so let's deduct that:
Women: Estimated number of victims 6,646,000
Men: Estimated number of victims 4,760,000

A bit of a difference, but not massive.

Now, let's look at rape.
Women: Estimated number of victims, 1,270,000 1.1%
Men: Estimated number of victims, *Estimate is not reported

Oh, wait a minute, we subtracted, but we forgot to add. Let's fix that:
Women: Estimated number of victims, 1,270,000 1.1%
Men: Estimated number of victims, 1,267,000 1.1%

Hmm, well, those numbers look pretty damn similar. That's not at all what the Wikipedia article (which, again cited the fucking BBC as the source, not the actual report itself) would seem to indicate. Sure seems like those 9 years of edits really resulted in some top quality stuff...

The reason I looked at 12 month data rather than lifetime is because human memory is terrible and this study had absolutely atrocious definitions for rape that would have included drunk sex. The 12 month data seems like a far more reliable indicator of the actual prevalence of sexual predation/victimization in our society.

The rest of my post was in regards to the 'patriachy', not rape. There's another recent thread on rape somewhere.

I still contest that a covert patriachy exits in the west (politically, econonically and culturally), and that an overt patriachy still exits more predominantly else where including politically, economically, religiously and culturally.

I'm yet to see you approach the question of the Patriachy through the avenues I highlighted here, in stead you are throwing at stats, and changing subjects.